Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-07-14
THURSDAY. JULY IA. 1887
Questions Answered.


that IL was not for defgfng the Law. but Tor
erading H. We asked II 70 point out where u
drew The line between the two, ana IL mas hot
vet done 81. Come, neighbor, wake uP, aad
give US an answer.
favor of destroying a taxpayers property in
one Of the States coupons by devices ana in1i-
rcciiDns. there wGs no difference IN principle
betwcel Il and Henry George. That the only
difference between thcm was In degree. That
tbe D1sJafth would destroy mans property
In a coupon, while George would destroy ~ IN
s couron but In n brick house also; the DIS
Tafeh, however. stopping at brick houses. we
aged The Disgaich 20 point out TO us In what
the difference between its views aud Georgos
consisted. We have had no answer yet. Come,
nslghbor wakO up and give US an answer we
also sho,Sfd tina, IN Osborn rs. The Bank OF tho
United states, decided in 1893, the supreme
Cont OF The United States held that suits, such
as are every day brought here In the United
states Court against uespa-slng STATE county
freasurers are not forbidden by the eleventh
amendment, and we called upon the Dispatch
10 show wherein the suits brought against tres
passing county treasurers differ from Osborn
~ The Bank. We have had no answer YET
Come, nctghbor, wake up anu give US III al
sver.
As TO the first question, we have to
say that we endeavored to point out to
the Times week ago how we proposed
to distinguish between defying the
Federal courts and eyading their I'M
lust and unrighteous decisions. We
said then that, for example, we would
not hesitate one moment before passing
law making all taxes fall due monthly
if thereby we could defeat the bond
holders in their effort to bankrupt the
Treasury. Or we would apportion the
taxes among the several cities and coun-
ties if thereby we could defeat those
efforts. There would be no defiance of
Federal authority in these measures.
As to HENRY GEORGES wild theories
We may say that the Times knows that
We are as much opposed to all his
teachings as is our neighbOr; and we
beg leave TO add that il HENRY
GroRGE's adherents in Virginia (if any
such there be- were to attempt to 81
lnce us by telling us that Judge BOND
bad decided that GEORGE was right, or
by telling us that the Supreme Court
of the United States had settled the
law of the matter in GEORGES favor,
We should still hold to our present
opinion on that subject.
As to the Ohio case, the Times
writes as if we bad declared that case
TO ave been decided Alright, and calls
upon us to point out the difference be-
tween that case and the Virginia cases
which We have pronounced to be de-
cisions in violation OF the eleventh arti-
Gle OF ame ndmcnts to the Federal Con-
stitution. We are inclined to think
that if we had the time to examine
into all the circumstances OF the Ohio
case. We could draw line of distinc-
tion between that case and the Vir-
pinia cases for in the dissenting opin-
ion in the Virginia cases MIR. Chief
Justice WAITE and his associates de-
clared emphatically that no such cases
had ever before been in that court.
We quote their own words. They say ::
"This is the first time, we believe,
since the eleventh amendment was
adopted in which State has been CO.
creed by judicial proceedings at the
suit of individuals in the Federal
courts.
This is plain avorment that those
distinguished iudges-though the Chief
Justice himself is an Ohio man-had
never beard of any Ohio case in which
the State was coerced as it was proposed
to ccerce Virginia in the coupon cases.
On the main point, We are backed by
authority so high that we need not say
word ourselves. The Chief Justice
of the United States, Judge WAITE,
shall speak for us. Mr. Justice BRADLEY
shall speak for us. Mr.. Justice NIL
LrR shall speak for us. MIR. Justice
GRAY shall speak for us. These are
tie legal giants upon whom we rely.
Their names far outweigh those OF the
Other five Justices-to wit, FIELD,
HArLAN, WOODS, BLArcHToRD, and
MATTHEWS. (WooDs is now dead.)
What said Chief-Justice WAITE and
his dissenting associates as to these
Virginia suits and the eleventh amend
msnt9 They reasoned as follows
..1he Fundamental ground Of oul
dissent is that this proceeding, and al
the proceedings on these coupons
brought here for our review, are cir
f,,oiy suits 0gai'sst the State Of Kr
oinio 20 compel a specific perform
ance 6y the Satc Of her agreement Il
receive Gie said coupons an payDaen
of all taros, dues, and demands"
Notice that these distinguished Judges
admit that the State had agreed to re-
ceive coupons for all taxes, dues, and
demands. But Notwithstanding they
mention that fact, they never for one
moment considered that good reason
why the Federal courts should compel
her TO receive them. Why not Be
cause they knew it was much more
heinous sin to violate the eleventh
amendment than TO refuse to receive
/ coupons for taxes Did the Chief Jus
tice and his associates teach the sam.
doctrines as HENRY GEORGE II so
We teach them. II not, we do not teaci
them.
Those distinguished Judges furthe
said
"However Just such proceeding
may seem in the abstract, or however
willing courts might be TO sustain il il
Il we're constitutional. yet, looking al
the case N il really il, we regard it a,
directly repugnant 10 the eleventh
amendment Of the Constitution"
There spoke patriotism ssnd regard